3 ms·
Speaking from experience of the British Army, these are used mainly for admin stuff within sub units in barracks. eg. A Sergeant wants his soldiers to parade at
by jack_riminton 5y ago
Speaking from experience of the British Army, these are used mainly for admin stuff within sub units in barracks. eg. A Sergeant wants his soldiers to parade at 08:00 tomorrow
Whereas these would never (usually) be used 'in the field'
- londons_explore 5y agoI worry that this 'admin stuff' can actually leak quite a lot of information. For example, to an adversary able to see the direct one to one social messages between a platoon of soldiers can probably easily figure out social dynamics, who might be most easily bribed, etc.
- aaomidi 5y agoThey can do that by looking at their public Facebook and Twitter lol
- dathinab 5y ago> worry that this 'admin stuff' can actually leak quite a lot of information. Hence why they put a limit on the usable chat systems. The worry also should extend to private conversations between to military members. But you can't really or them all the time to use military controlled apps, that in practice just doesn't work out. So limiting them to commercial but reasonable secure solutions which are under a local jurisdiction is a reasonable good solution. A public accessible Swiss military payed Signal fork probably would be an better solution tbh., but Threema isn't bad either. Just not quite as good as Signal.
- jack_riminton 5y agoWhilst I agree with you on principle the thought of an adversary combing data in order to bribe Private Bloggs of the Loamshire Rifles is comical
- throw0101a 5y ago> Whereas these would never (usually) be used 'in the field' You don't want people to get into bad habits.
- jack_riminton 5y agoGood thing they're not allowed to take mobiles on actual operations